Would you support a small group Cyrodiil Campaign?

Turelus

ToRelax wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

jakeyura wrote: »

What would have more coordination a group of 24 with one group leader or 4 groups of 6 with 4 different group leaders.

Groups would be more inclined to do their own thing and not just follow the pack.

That's wishful thinking, and as long as people have voice comms nothing changes.

Well I think it would effect PvP quite drastically. And it likely wouldn't be difficult to implement either, considering we already have group limits in PvE. No one can really claim to know how such a change would play out, and with the implementation not being especially difficult and a lot of players in favour of trying it out, it seems like a good idea. Even if it doesn't work out, ZOS wouldn't have invested much and the players would see they are trying to improve the PvP experience for everyone.

I think we would just be wasting time adding another dead campaign with weird rules to the list. Less than three months until battlegrounds which will make a lot of the small group PvP players happier.

Rickter

No.

NO - go play league of legends and leave my open world eso pvp alone.

Biro123

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Wouldn't do anything, it would be a better idea to just add mechanics and incentives to split up zergs.

They have! its called Lag

jakeyura

Yes. Max group size of 6

Rickter wrote: »

NO - go play league of legends and leave my open world eso pvp alone.

Are you stupid? Nobody said you have to join the campaign. You can no skill Zerg people down all you want in your regular campaign. This campaign would be for people with a competitive mindset but also want to still play open world.

ill simplify this so you're 3rd grade reading level can keep up.

We want ONE CAMPAIGN to be small group only nobody would be forced to join it.

jakeyura

Yes. Max group size of 6

Turelus wrote: »

I think we would just be wasting time adding another dead campaign with weird rules to the list. Less than three months until battlegrounds which will make a lot of the small group PvP players happier.

So you're saying there are dead campaigns that could be easily replace with something more interesting and worth a test??

I can't fathom how people are against giving more options in PVP.

Are you scared all the small groups you zerg down would leave for said campaign and your normal campaign would be reduced to Zerg vs Zerg??

Soul_Demon

I would love to see this happen...one server for groups that cannot go any more than 4. No points at all for keeps, resources, scrolls or anything but player kills. The only problem with this is I think regardless of what players say, without players in larger groups pushing the map, there isn't anything to hit and no predictable way to find the enemy....everyone in 4 mans in stealth sitting in open fields waiting. Would be interesting to see how farming groups played on that server too....

ToRelax

Yes. Max group size of 6

Soul_Demon wrote: »

I would love to see this happen...one server for groups that cannot go any more than 4. No points at all for keeps, resources, scrolls or anything but player kills. The only problem with this is I think regardless of what players say, without players in larger groups pushing the map, there isn't anything to hit and no predictable way to find the enemy....everyone in 4 mans in stealth sitting in open fields waiting. Would be interesting to see how farming groups played on that server too....

Not every small group is a ganksquad or unable to assault objectives...

olivesforge

jakeyura wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I think we would just be wasting time adding another dead campaign with weird rules to the list. Less than three months until battlegrounds which will make a lot of the small group PvP players happier.

So you're saying there are dead campaigns that could be easily replace with something more interesting and worth a test??

I can't fathom how people are against giving more options in PVP.

Are you scared all the small groups you zerg down would leave for said campaign and your normal campaign would be reduced to Zerg vs Zerg??

1) Normal campaigns are already zerg vs. zerg, and,

2) Zeni's already tried special objective/conditions campaigns before, most recently with IC release, and it didn't even make it off of the PTS. People hated the restrictions placed on Azura's and Axe then, and I don't think you see any difference here - it would end up being an empty campaign, except with special conditions that would ensure that nobody would choose it over the current ones.

The only exception to the rule has been Azura's no CP - and that has as much to do with lag as anything else.

3) Ultimately, Zeni needs to fix Trueflame - the server people actually play on, despite its flaws - before they go dicking around with other campaigns.

NBrookus

Soul_Demon wrote: »

I would love to see this happen...one server for groups that cannot go any more than 4. No points at all for keeps, resources, scrolls or anything but player kills. The only problem with this is I think regardless of what players say, without players in larger groups pushing the map, there isn't anything to hit and no predictable way to find the enemy....everyone in 4 mans in stealth sitting in open fields waiting. Would be interesting to see how farming groups played on that server too....

An undefended keep can be taken with two without too much trouble. Outposts are even easier. Fighting a larger group from a fortified position can be a lot of fun... even if objectives didn't count I think you'd still see stuff being taken.

Dreyloch

No.

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Unless there were a magic way to ban all voice comms, it's pointless. Otherwise, sure, I'd even support a pure solo campaign with no groups at all.

Ultimately, we don't even have enough PVP population anymore to keep Trueflame filled up, let alone adding a fifth campaign with limited appeal on top of the already low pop Haderus and Azura's Star.
.

I voted no, and I agree with your comms comment.Those were my thoughts too. But I'm not sure where your getting TF is not filling up? NA TF has a queue just about every U.S. prime time night, and is pop locked. Queue might be longer for one faction vs. another. But they all have one. Unless your talking about Xbox or PS4?

Minno

Yes. Max group size of 6

KILLING4ALIVING wrote: »

No point, people would still faction stack whether in a group or not.

Not those buffs though. Lock buffs and heals to the group, and problem solved.

Kay1

Yes. Max group size of 6

8 players is not small-scale

Turelus

jakeyura wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I think we would just be wasting time adding another dead campaign with weird rules to the list. Less than three months until battlegrounds which will make a lot of the small group PvP players happier.

So you're saying there are dead campaigns that could be easily replace with something more interesting and worth a test??

I can't fathom how people are against giving more options in PVP.

Are you scared all the small groups you zerg down would leave for said campaign and your normal campaign would be reduced to Zerg vs Zerg??

I'm saying it changes nothing, as ZOS themselves have said on ESO Live and its a waste of time.
There is one dead-ish campaign right now and that's Haderus (at least EU) and even that suffers the AD zerg issue.

It's player mentality and objective design which makes zergs. Follow everyone else for safety, goto the objectives under attack for PvP. So everyone goes to one location and follows around one or a few people.

out51d3r

Pointless. People will zerg it up no matter what the actual group size is. I've seen it over and over again in many different games. As long as having 2 people is better than having one, and as long as having 50 is better than having 20, people are going to zerg.

The only way to stop the zerg is to reduce the amount of players on the server. Battlegrounds are the way to solve this.

Danksta

Sounds cool in theory. I suppose they could make it so you take damage if you're within x meters of friendlies that you're not grouped with. Maybe a DoT that grows stronger and stronger until it eventually one-shots you. It would certainly have some major troll potential.

IcyDeadPeople

Dreyloch wrote: »

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Unless there were a magic way to ban all voice comms, it's pointless. Otherwise, sure, I'd even support a pure solo campaign with no groups at all.

Ultimately, we don't even have enough PVP population anymore to keep Trueflame filled up, let alone adding a fifth campaign with limited appeal on top of the already low pop Haderus and Azura's Star.
.

I voted no, and I agree with your comms comment.Those were my thoughts too. But I'm not sure where your getting TF is not filling up? NA TF has a queue just about every U.S. prime time night, and is pop locked. Queue might be longer for one faction vs. another. But they all have one. Unless your talking about Xbox or PS4?

At one time we had 10 campaigns all with much higher population cap and you could log on 24/7 and find epic battles and players all over the map, even weeknights.

These days, the caps are lower, and if you play late at night Pacific time, TF is almost never locked on NA PC at least. Sometimes even TF is a bit dead and you have to ride around looking for people to fight.

Minno

Yes. Max group size of 6

out51d3r wrote: »

Pointless. People will zerg it up no matter what the actual group size is. I've seen it over and over again in many different games. As long as having 2 people is better than having one, and as long as having 50 is better than having 20, people are going to zerg.

The only way to stop the zerg is to reduce the amount of players on the server. Battlegrounds are the way to solve this.

That's because there is no negative in running as a large blob. If running in a blob meant you have extra people to dedicate towards roles and your skills together do more dmg, it makes sense that you also take extra AOE dmg (electricity to bounce around targets, spells that will rip players apart the closer they are to each other, powerful seige, explosions that will rip across bodies).

For flipside discussion, smaller PvP has strength and weakness. You can move more independently, your bars are setup for more balanced play, and rapids/barrer can be done easier in a 6 man group due to the caps. But against a larger force, you can't face tank them. You don't have players in strict roles, and your strategy has to be fluid as well as your mobility.

Only problem is, as a smaller crew you can't do full AOE dmg on the entire group. This creates a situation in which it is impossible to fight against any numbers stacked against you, where the only thing you can do is try to pull them off to numbers you can hit reliably.

Or as a smaller group, snares/immobilize effects should not be as effective on you as it should on a larger group. To promote the mobility strength in running by yourself or with a group of 6.

ToRelax

Yes. Max group size of 6

.

Minno wrote: »

out51d3r wrote: »

Pointless. People will zerg it up no matter what the actual group size is. I've seen it over and over again in many different games. As long as having 2 people is better than having one, and as long as having 50 is better than having 20, people are going to zerg.

The only way to stop the zerg is to reduce the amount of players on the server. Battlegrounds are the way to solve this.

That's because there is no negative in running as a large blob. If running in a blob meant you have extra people to dedicate towards roles and your skills together do more dmg, it makes sense that you also take extra AOE dmg (electricity to bounce around targets, spells that will rip players apart the closer they are to each other, powerful seige, explosions that will rip across bodies).

For flipside discussion, smaller PvP has strength and weakness. You can move more independently, your bars are setup for more balanced play, and rapids/barrer can be done easier in a 6 man group due to the caps. But against a larger force, you can't face tank them. You don't have players in strict roles, and your strategy has to be fluid as well as your mobility.

Only problem is, as a smaller crew you can't do full AOE dmg on the entire group. This creates a situation in which it is impossible to fight against any numbers stacked against you, where the only thing you can do is try to pull them off to numbers you can hit reliably.

Or as a smaller group, snares/immobilize effects should not be as effective on you as it should on a larger group. To promote the mobility strength in running by yourself or with a group of 6.

Before changing anything else about roots or snares, I'd like to see charge snares removed. That in itself would help small scale players a lot.

Etaniel

Yes. Max group size for 4

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

KILLING4ALIVING wrote: »

No point, people would still faction stack whether in a group or not.

This. Also, the point of small scaling is to fight larger numbers. We want to fight larger groups than ourselves.

No, that's not the point of small scale. That's the point for bomb groups.
The point of small scale is not having buff bots in the group, not having one individual task, and focusing more on single target combat.

That doesn't mean small scalers don't want to fight outnumbered, but it's not the main objective.

Turelus wrote: »

I don't see what this would change.

4x6 is still 24.

The only difference is skill effects (group only), AP sharing, overhead icons.

Zergs will remain as players will still just group up and follow one another.

Well I think you overestimate voice comms and underestimate overhead icons. When in doubt people always look for the crown. I'm not saying voice comms are useless, I believe the exact opposite, but I do think that they would require sufficiently more coordination without the big group UI to change the game.

Turelus

Etaniel wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I don't see what this would change.

4x6 is still 24.

The only difference is skill effects (group only), AP sharing, overhead icons.

Zergs will remain as players will still just group up and follow one another.

Well I think you overestimate voice comms and underestimate overhead icons. When in doubt people always look for the crown. I'm not saying voice comms are useless, I believe the exact opposite, but I do think that they would require sufficiently more coordination without the big group UI to change the game.

Even if that's the case, you would possibly lose trains but not zergs. Players will follow players whether grouped or not.

ToRelax

Yes. Max group size of 6

Turelus wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I don't see what this would change.

4x6 is still 24.

The only difference is skill effects (group only), AP sharing, overhead icons.

Zergs will remain as players will still just group up and follow one another.

Well I think you overestimate voice comms and underestimate overhead icons. When in doubt people always look for the crown. I'm not saying voice comms are useless, I believe the exact opposite, but I do think that they would require sufficiently more coordination without the big group UI to change the game.

Even if that's the case, you would possibly lose trains but not zergs. Players will follow players whether grouped or not.

Of course. But without a train among the zerg, one can fight against that zerg with any groupsize (including another random zerg) without the whole fight being decided by either bombing the train or getting rolled over by it.

Turelus

ToRelax wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I don't see what this would change.

4x6 is still 24.

The only difference is skill effects (group only), AP sharing, overhead icons.

Zergs will remain as players will still just group up and follow one another.

Well I think you overestimate voice comms and underestimate overhead icons. When in doubt people always look for the crown. I'm not saying voice comms are useless, I believe the exact opposite, but I do think that they would require sufficiently more coordination without the big group UI to change the game.

Even if that's the case, you would possibly lose trains but not zergs. Players will follow players whether grouped or not.

Of course. But without a train among the zerg, one can fight against that zerg with any groupsize (including another random zerg) without the whole fight being decided by either bombing the train or getting rolled over by it.

Okay sure, but a bomb train is generally a raid using VOIP which is much more organised. If it's a true bomb train (and good at it) I doubt this will stop them much.

When I have been in or lead bomb trains we didn't say "follow the crown" and just run around. We would call locations and compass marks "We're going wast towards the broken tree, east to the tree, east to the tree".

I understand where you're coming from and what you're asking for, I just don't think this will work to get those results. If the idea is to stop trains they need to focus on making stacking and spamming AoE not a valid tactic.